Hello, everyone. I was an atheist until at the age of 27 I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it. I learned quickly that the Bible was grossly misrepresented by apostate Christendom's adoption of pagan teachings such as the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Easter from Astarte, Christmas from the winter solstice celebrations, and most recently the Rapture from Darby.
Though I have never and will never be a part of organized religion, my beliefs are not entirely dissimilar to that of The Jehovah's Witnesses, due to the removal of the aforementioned pagan influence. I have studied briefly the history of the major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism and Taoism and have published sacred and non-sacred texts from each of these online: The Dhammapada, Four Noble Truths, Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, Analects Of Confucius, Bhagavad Gita, Qur'an, Pirqe Aboth, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu.
Having been an atheist most of my life and given that nearly everyone I know is atheist, I think I understand and respect where most of you are coming from. I don't believe in "converting" anyone to anything, but I do think the atheist tends to be mislead when it comes to the Bible. Not that that matters much, except for that I do enjoy, given the opportunity, to correct them in thoughtful and polite discussion and debate.
I hope we can have some interesting conversations.
So lets see here, mistranslations are god's fault, right. You know the whole babble thing. So most of his followers are all wrong because he intentionally screwed it all up with multitudes of languages. Your god is an idiot !
David - I have no desire for you to appear wrong or right. I've simply provided you with an article that proves you dead wrong - for reasons that I've elaborated on just a moment ago in another post.
@ Heather Spoonheim
Have you ever heard of a patent clerk named Albert Einstein? Or a secretary named Jane Goodall? They were ordinary people who had ideas that were dismissed by Ph.Ds. Just a thought.
T. Moreux is the former head of Bourges Observatory in France, you know - the heavens? This is what he said about it. “this expanse, which to us constitutes heaven, is designated in the Hebrew text by a word which the [Greek] Septuagint, influenced by the cosmological ideas prevailing at the time, translated by stereoma, firmament, solid canopy. Moses transmits no such thought. The Hebrew word raqia only conveys the idea of extent or, better still, expanse.”
That is correct.
Lets look at your PhD. He says: “One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia (pronounced ra-KEE-ah). Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. It separates the water into two parts, so that there is water above the raqia and water below it (v. 7). The waters above are kept at bay so the world can become inhabitable. On the third day (vv. 9-10), the water below the raqia is “gathered to one place” to form the sea and allow the dry land to appear.
Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up.”
Then he says: “According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);”
Heather? How is it that the ancient Israelites saw this when the flood took place long before the nation of Israel was created?
2 Peter 3:5 says this: “For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God.”
The water was used for the flood. It couldn’t have been seen by the Israelites.
Simple, Davey boy - the ancient Israelites viewed the sky as a barrier holding back the waters above - just as they wrote it, and in line with the views of surrounding cultures of the time, documented in the writings of those cultures. They, nor anyone else, considered those waters to be of limited quantity, good for one flood only.
To suggest that they did you would need to provide some evidence that they did. To suggest that their description of a solid barrier between the water above and below was not one of a solid barrier, the ubiquitous belief of the time, you would need to provide some evidence to that end.
At least you've now moved beyond Hovind who liked to play silly word games about Greek and Latin. The text is written in Hebrew, has been preserved by the Jews for millenia, and they have never waivered in their belief about what it means to say - there are literally libraries worth of documented Rabbinical exchanges on the topic.
All of that is attested to by the people who pour over such documents, one of them being the source I mentioned, unlike your astronomer. Now show me some evidence that the Hebrew word was ever understood, by anyone who actually studied/spoke the language, to be anything other than that solid barrier in that context, and you'll have something to support your view.
Do you even understand what I'm asking for here? I'm not asking for your opinion on what the word means. I'm not asking for the opinions of butchers, bakers, astronomers, or candle stick makers. I'm asking for the informed opinion of linguists, or Rabbis who fluently read the text, or anyone who can actually back up their statement.
The "flood" you mention Davy, happened three hundred years before the fictional Noah was alleged to have lived. It covered an area equivalent to three counties, to a depth of 22.5 feet, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks in 2900 BCE, when the king of the area, reputedly Zuisudra, an actual, historical king of the area, as opposed to the fictional Noah, for whom there's no evidence, escaped the flood by boarding a trading barge loaded with cotton, cattle and beer.
There isn't enough water in, on, under, or above the earth to cover it even to the depth of Mt Ararat, much less Mt Eveerest.
It's all crap, designed to provide nomadic shepherds with an historical lineage.
Heather - Wake me when you get a factual, evidentiary response --
Premise: "the firmament was a Latin mistranslation of a Greek word based upon the time in which it was given."
Evidence: "aside from a 19th century theologian, and I think 2 modern day scientist, but also an examination of the Bible itself using two translations footnotes and linear notes."
That is not evidence. That is a claim to have evidence.
Which theologian? Which two modern day scientists? Which two translations of the Bible? Which footnotes? Which linear notes? What are the names, dates, and publishers of their works? What specifically do they say? What do they cite as evidence?
For example, the atheist claims that my Dark Ages misunderstanding is incorrect, because they want the Bible to appear wrong; by saying the Bible DID say heaven was a solid dome with sluice holes to let in rain.
It's not "the atheist" making a claim. The atheist is rejecting Biblical claims and your claims, and for the same reasons: lack of evidence or strong evidence to the contrary.
I quoted the Bible where it says birds fly in heaven, and clouds and dust are comparable in the Hebrew, not the Latin mistranslation of the Greek. I also quoted the Bible's description of the hydrological cycle which respected scientists have concluded, the Bible correctly describes.
Which "respected scientists" have concluded the Bible correctly describes the water cycle? On what basis have they reached their conclusions? What specifically do they say?
This proves the Bible doesn't agree with the Dark Ages and the atheist complaint is incorrect.
It proves you get the answer from science, then select whichever Biblical translation seemingly agrees with that answer.
The Bible says the earth is a circle, but the word may also be translated as sphere. Therefore, according to you, the Bible MUST mean sphere, because empirical science tells us the world is an ellipsoid, and that's close enough.
How do you assert the correctness of a particular Bible, translation, or interpretation? You use science, not the Bibles themselves, to choose your answers. The 900 translations of the Bible are a multiple choice quiz. You're cheating.
David as one who claims to have been an atheist for I can't remember how long, you know the true christian line doesn't pass muster! tell me what you are doing here, am patient so long as it is brief lol
Why am I here? Why are you here? Why do you ask?
I've said it before. I'm here to educate the atheist misconceptions of the Bible. For discussion and debate.
You believe in a great flood that encompassed the entire planet?
How did all the fish survive, saltwater fish can't survive in fresh water and fresh can't survive the salt. Did it rain fresh or salt water?
What did all these creatures eat on their long walk back across the planet, all vegetation would have died off from being under water for so long and all other sources of food would have died in the flood.
Did the penguins trek across the desert without food?
These questions are for folks like DH to answer. He has taken on a fool's arrand, trying to make sense out of non-sense.
For us, moving on is the best cure, not taking on the nuttyness, our freedom. DH can write commentaries till they die of exhaustion, having wasted their time with a hall of mirrors. Looking at their body of 'work', as their reward, turning more precious trees into a cultural artifact.
Carry on DH.
So how many angels can dance on a pin head? Is the answer 'none', 'one', 'infinite', or 'what a bullshit question'?
As one who is here to educate atheists you seem to require a lot of education yourself.
You need education on etiquette, on logic and i don't know what else. We have a good time polling what will make you leave soonest, well because we miss a lot of the BS you spew here.
Do everyone a favour, either you start the teaching you intended to do or shut the fuck up. You can't go insulting everyone who disagrees with you besides I don't remember we wrote an application to have a teacher on bible misconceptions. If you have been keen, the respondents here can hold their fort on religion.
Everyone is born atheist, so don't take any credit. Other people are lucky their parents are irreligious so they start to learn from a young age how BS religion is others come to it on their own.
Which school did you go to, that is if you went? You can't claim to have been an atheist for 27 years then come here to tell us you don't know the meaning of word deist, you commit logical fallacies and tell us shit is god, what the hell!